Xref: utzoo news.admin:7422 news.groups:13882
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!philmtl!philabs!ccnysci!dan
From: dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: These new voting schemes
Message-ID: <3680@ccnysci.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 89 14:46:04 GMT
References: <4771@ncar.ucar.edu> <15249.253f3716@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> <37123@looking.on.ca> <4806@ncar.ucar.edu>
Reply-To: dan@ccnysci.UUCP (Dan Schlitt)
Organization: City College Of New York
Lines: 60

In article <4806@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <37123@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>All of the proposals share another major fault: complexity.
>>Complexity breeds flaming.  It's hard to manage, sure to result in
>>misinterpretation, and increases bureaucracy.
>>
>>I firmly maintain the guidelines have to be made shorter, not longer.
>
>  We have to keep it SIMPLE. That's why I like either the NO vote threshhold
>(again, simple and easy to verify) or having a name czar (or better, a small
>group of name czars just to prevent one person with an axe to grind from
>making a big issue out of a single case).
>  I think that simplicity and verifiability are the most important things we
>need in any new voting scheme. Flexibility of expression on the part of the
>voters is nice, but not as important as keeping it simple and making it
>easily verifiable.
>
>--Greg
It has been a pleasure to watch the political idealism that has run
through this thread.  But idealism has its limits and Brad and Greg
have hit upon two of the limits in the quoted material above.

Recall if you will, that there have been vigorous complaints that the
current system requires too much time to create a newsgroup and that
the complex guidelines get in the way.

I suggest that there are three things which are required of a useful
and effective voting system.

1) It must be simple.
2) It must be verifiable.
3) It must give a definitive result.

The present system, no matter what its other faults, satisfies these
three requirements.  I am yet to be convinced that the proposed
changes, save the one introducing a "no vote" threshold, satisfy these
three requirements.

Introduction of a threshold for no votes that would prevent the
creation of the newsgroup would be a significant change.  It is really
impossible to judge what it would do by looking at past votes.  Under
the present system it really doesn't make much difference if you vote
against the creation of a group because a no vote can be offset by a
yes vote.  The introduction of the threshold significantly increases
the value of a no vote.  A simple threshold like 100 no votes means no
number of yes votes can offset the no vote; Percentage thresholds are
not quite so drastic in effect.

The result will be that voter behavior will be radically changed from
the past.  It will pay to vote no and people will do so.  It weights
the scale against group creation (the intention of the proposers), but
how heavily it does so is hard to evaluate.  My guess is that it does
so much more than its supporters intend.


-- 
Dan Schlitt                        Manager, Science Division Computer Facility
dan@sci.ccny.cuny.edu              City College of New York
dan@ccnysci.uucp                   New York, NY 10031
dan@ccnysci.bitnet                 (212)690-6868